Specific Language Impairment
Conditions
Brief summary
This research attempts to adapt and optimize a word learning treatment, specifically interactive book reading, for use with Kindergarten children with Specific Language Impairment (SLI). Children with SLI have difficulty learning language without any obvious cause for this difficulty. This study will examine the best way to achieve the appropriate intensity of 36 exposures. For example, is it better to hear the new words many times within the book (high dose) and to read the book few times (low dose frequency), or is it better to hear the new words a few times within the book (low dose) and to read the book many times (high dose frequency). The investigators hypothesize that reading the books many times will be more effective than repeating the words many times within a book.
Detailed description
Specific Language Impairment (SLI) affects approximately 7.4% of Kindergarten children. Children with SLI are known to have difficulty learning new words, which places them at greater risk for future reading impairments and academic failure. Surprisingly, there are few interventions for word learning by children with SLI that have undergone rigorous efficacy and/or effectiveness testing. The goal of this research is to optimize an interactive book reading intervention that has proven to be successful in teaching vocabulary to other groups of Kindergarten children. A secondary goal was to examine whether pre-treatment characteristics predicted how many words children would learn. This study further tests the adequate intensity of 36 exposures. Each child will receive two treatments at the identified adequate intensity. Children were randomized to two treatments: the standard treatment and 1 of 2 alternative treatments. The standard treatment used in prior research was balanced between the amount of times the new word is heard within the book (dose 6) and the amount of times the book is read (dose frequency 6). The alternative treatments were more heavily weighted for either repetitions within the book (high dose/low dose frequency, i.e., dose 9 x dose frequency 4) or the amount of times the book is read (low dose/high dose frequency, i.e., dose 4 x dose frequency 9). Ultimately, this study determines how best to achieve the adequate intensity of 36 exposures. A secondary goal was to further examine the pre-treatment factors associated with the number of words learned by children with SLI during interactive book reading. We once again explore a variety of potential predictors including those that were significant in a prior study (i.e., phonological awareness, nonword repetition, and semantics) as well as those that were not significant in a prior study but that had the potential to be related to a child's ability to learn during interactive book reading. That is, a child's general language abilities (as measured by the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals-4, CELF-4, Core Language score) and their ability to understand verbally presented stories (as measured by the CELF-4 Understanding Spoken Paragraphs score) could impact their success in encoding new words during interactive book reading.
Interventions
BEHAVIORALTreatment (interactive book reading, dialogic reading, shared book reading)
Children receive 2 rounds of treatment with interactive book reading. Each treatment teaches 30 words that the children do not know. Treatments vary in dose (the number of times the words is heard/taught in an individual book reading session: 4 vs. 6 vs. 9) and dose frequency (the number of times book reading sessions are repeated: 4 vs. 6. vs. 9). Across all dose x dose frequency combinations, children hear/are taught the 30 words 36 times, which has been shown to be the adequate overall intensity of the intervention.
Sponsors
National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIDCD)
University of Kansas
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
CROSSOVER
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
SINGLE (Outcomes Assessor)
Masking description
Research assistants that collect and score the pre/post outcomes are blind to arm assignment.
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
5 Years to 6 Years
Healthy volunteers
No
Inclusion criteria
* Eligible for Kindergarten enrollment * Age 5 to 6 years * Normal hearing * Nonverbal Intelligence Quotient (IQ) of 85 or higher on the Reynolds Intellectual Assessment Scale * Score below 82 on the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals * Score at or below the 10% percentile on one of the approved standardized vocabulary assessments.
Exclusion criteria
* Speaks more than one language * Health history indicating neurologic or other disorder that would exclude a diagnosis of SLI (e.g., autism, developmental disability, seizure disorder)
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Change in Words Known From Pre- to Post-treatment | Pre- and Post-treatment with treatment lasting 10 to 23 sessions (approximately 5 to 12 weeks) | In each of the two treatments, children are taught 30 new words and tested on their ability to provide a definition of each word. Definitions are scored as 0 points for an incorrect or absent definition, 1 point for an appropriate use of the word in a sentence or for a vague definition, 2 points for a conventional definition containing at least one critical element but lacking other critical elements, and 3 points for a complete and accurate definition including all critical elements. For the analyses, children's definitions scored as 2 or 3 (i.e., a partially or completely accurate definition) were counted as correct (i.e., the child knows the word) and definitions scored as 0 or 1 (i.e., incorrect definition, absent definition, correct use of a word in a sentence, or vague definition) were counted as incorrect (i.e., the child does not know the word). Thus, children's scores could range from 0 to 30 words known, with higher scores indicating better outcomes. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Interim Definition | Treatment lasted 5-12 weeks. Data was taken during this time. | Learning also was tracked during treatment. The research assistant who provided the treatment prompted children to provide definitions at four points during each treatment. Depending on the arm, the four test points corresponded to 6-9 exposures, 18-20 exposures, 27-30 exposures, and 36 exposures.The words were assessed in a fixed order while the child viewed the pre-reading pictures for each word. The research assistant asked, What does \[word\] mean?. Specific feedback was not provided but the correct definition always was provided after the child's response regardless of the accuracy of the response. Scoring was the same as that described for definitions administered pre/post. Scores could range from 0-30 words correctly defined. |
| Interim Naming | Administered during treatment, which lasted 5-12 weeks | Learning also was tracked during treatment. The research assistant who provided the treatment prompted children to name the target words at four points during each treatment. Depending on the arm, the four test points corresponded to 6-9 exposures, 18-20 exposures, 27-30 exposures, and 36 exposures. The research assistant showed the child the post-book reading picture without the orthographic label and asked a question meant to elicit the phonological form of the target word (e.g., What is the lightning doing? to elicit flashing). Specific feedback was not provided but the correct orthographic label and context sentence always were provided after the child's response regardless of the accuracy of the response. Responses were scored as correct (i.e., matched the target word) or incorrect (i.e., did not match the target word). Total score could range from 0 to 30 words correctly named in each treatment. |
Countries
United States
Participant flow
Participants by arm
| Arm | Count |
|---|---|
| Standard Then Alternative: High Dose Treatment 1= dose 6 x dose frequency 6 Treatment 2 = dose 9 x dose frequency 4 | 8 |
| Alternative: High Dose Then Standard Treatment 1= dose 9 x dose frequency 4 Treatment 2 = dose 6 x dose frequency 6 | 9 |
| Alternative: High Dose Frequency Then Standard Treatment 1= dose 4 x dose frequency 49 Treatment 2 = dose 6 x dose frequency 6 | 9 |
| Standard Then Alternative: High Dose Frequency Treatment 1= dose 6 x dose frequency 6 Treatment 2 = dose 4 x dose frequency 9 | 8 |
| Total | 34 |
Withdrawals & dropouts
| Period | Reason | FG000 | FG001 | FG002 | FG003 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Study | Protocol Violation | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
Baseline characteristics
| Characteristic | Standard Then Alternative: High Dose Frequency | Total | Standard Then Alternative: High Dose | Alternative: High Dose Then Standard | Alternative: High Dose Frequency Then Standard |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, Continuous | 64 months STANDARD_DEVIATION 4 | 66 months STANDARD_DEVIATION 5 | 65 months STANDARD_DEVIATION 3 | 68 months STANDARD_DEVIATION 4 | 68 months STANDARD_DEVIATION 4 |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Hispanic or Latino | 0 Participants | 1 Participants | 0 Participants | 1 Participants | 0 Participants |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Not Hispanic or Latino | 8 Participants | 30 Participants | 6 Participants | 7 Participants | 9 Participants |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Unknown or Not Reported | 0 Participants | 3 Participants | 2 Participants | 1 Participants | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) American Indian or Alaska Native | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Asian | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Black or African American | 0 Participants | 3 Participants | 2 Participants | 0 Participants | 1 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) More than one race | 0 Participants | 2 Participants | 0 Participants | 2 Participants | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Unknown or Not Reported | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) White | 8 Participants | 29 Participants | 6 Participants | 7 Participants | 8 Participants |
| Region of Enrollment United States | 8 participants | 34 participants | 8 participants | 9 participants | 9 participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Female | 1 Participants | 13 Participants | 4 Participants | 4 Participants | 4 Participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Male | 7 Participants | 21 Participants | 4 Participants | 5 Participants | 5 Participants |
| Target Vocabulary Probe Treatment 1: Pre | 0.38 Number correct STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.52 | 0.59 Number correct STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.74 | 0.63 Number correct STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.92 | 0.78 Number correct STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.67 | 0.56 Number correct STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.88 |
| Target Vocabulary Probe Treatment 2: Pre | 0.38 Number correct STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.52 | 0.76 Number correct STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.05 | 0.63 Number correct STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.74 | 0.56 Number correct STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.73 | 1.44 Number correct STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.59 |
Adverse events
| Event type | EG000 affected / at risk | EG001 affected / at risk | EG002 affected / at risk | EG003 affected / at risk |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| deaths Total, all-cause mortality | 0 / 8 | 0 / 8 | 0 / 8 | 0 / 8 |
| other Total, other adverse events | 0 / 8 | 0 / 9 | 0 / 9 | 0 / 9 |
| serious Total, serious adverse events | 0 / 8 | 0 / 9 | 0 / 9 | 0 / 8 |
Outcome results
Primary
Change in Words Known From Pre- to Post-treatment
In each of the two treatments, children are taught 30 new words and tested on their ability to provide a definition of each word. Definitions are scored as 0 points for an incorrect or absent definition, 1 point for an appropriate use of the word in a sentence or for a vague definition, 2 points for a conventional definition containing at least one critical element but lacking other critical elements, and 3 points for a complete and accurate definition including all critical elements. For the analyses, children's definitions scored as 2 or 3 (i.e., a partially or completely accurate definition) were counted as correct (i.e., the child knows the word) and definitions scored as 0 or 1 (i.e., incorrect definition, absent definition, correct use of a word in a sentence, or vague definition) were counted as incorrect (i.e., the child does not know the word). Thus, children's scores could range from 0 to 30 words known, with higher scores indicating better outcomes.
Time frame: Pre- and Post-treatment with treatment lasting 10 to 23 sessions (approximately 5 to 12 weeks)
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Standard Then Alternative: High Dose | Change in Words Known From Pre- to Post-treatment | Treatment 1: Pre | 0.63 Number of words learned | Standard Error 0.32 |
| Standard Then Alternative: High Dose | Change in Words Known From Pre- to Post-treatment | Treatment 1: Post | 6.88 Number of words learned | Standard Error 1.82 |
| Standard Then Alternative: High Dose | Change in Words Known From Pre- to Post-treatment | Treatment 2: Pre | 0.63 Number of words learned | Standard Error 0.26 |
| Standard Then Alternative: High Dose | Change in Words Known From Pre- to Post-treatment | Treatment 2: Post | 4.13 Number of words learned | Standard Error 0.52 |
| Alternative: High Dose Then Standard | Change in Words Known From Pre- to Post-treatment | Treatment 1: Post | 2.44 Number of words learned | Standard Error 0.77 |
| Alternative: High Dose Then Standard | Change in Words Known From Pre- to Post-treatment | Treatment 2: Pre | 0.56 Number of words learned | Standard Error 0.24 |
| Alternative: High Dose Then Standard | Change in Words Known From Pre- to Post-treatment | Treatment 2: Post | 3.67 Number of words learned | Standard Error 1.05 |
| Alternative: High Dose Then Standard | Change in Words Known From Pre- to Post-treatment | Treatment 1: Pre | 0.78 Number of words learned | Standard Error 0.22 |
| High Dose Frequency Then Standard | Change in Words Known From Pre- to Post-treatment | Treatment 2: Pre | 1.44 Number of words learned | Standard Error 0.53 |
| High Dose Frequency Then Standard | Change in Words Known From Pre- to Post-treatment | Treatment 1: Post | 3.67 Number of words learned | Standard Error 1.39 |
| High Dose Frequency Then Standard | Change in Words Known From Pre- to Post-treatment | Treatment 2: Post | 5.89 Number of words learned | Standard Error 2.14 |
| High Dose Frequency Then Standard | Change in Words Known From Pre- to Post-treatment | Treatment 1: Pre | 0.56 Number of words learned | Standard Error 0.29 |
| Standard Then Alternative: High Dose Frequency | Change in Words Known From Pre- to Post-treatment | Treatment 2: Post | 4.75 Number of words learned | Standard Error 1.22 |
| Standard Then Alternative: High Dose Frequency | Change in Words Known From Pre- to Post-treatment | Treatment 1: Post | 2.75 Number of words learned | Standard Error 0.7 |
| Standard Then Alternative: High Dose Frequency | Change in Words Known From Pre- to Post-treatment | Treatment 1: Pre | 0.38 Number of words learned | Standard Error 0.25 |
| Standard Then Alternative: High Dose Frequency | Change in Words Known From Pre- to Post-treatment | Treatment 2: Pre | 0.38 Number of words learned | Standard Error 0.18 |
p-value: <0.05Mixed Models Analysis
p-value: <0.05Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary
Interim Definition
Learning also was tracked during treatment. The research assistant who provided the treatment prompted children to provide definitions at four points during each treatment. Depending on the arm, the four test points corresponded to 6-9 exposures, 18-20 exposures, 27-30 exposures, and 36 exposures.The words were assessed in a fixed order while the child viewed the pre-reading pictures for each word. The research assistant asked, What does \[word\] mean?. Specific feedback was not provided but the correct definition always was provided after the child's response regardless of the accuracy of the response. Scoring was the same as that described for definitions administered pre/post. Scores could range from 0-30 words correctly defined.
Time frame: Treatment lasted 5-12 weeks. Data was taken during this time.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Standard Then Alternative: High Dose | Interim Definition | Treatment 2: Test 2 | 6.00 Number of words correct | Standard Error 1.43 |
| Standard Then Alternative: High Dose | Interim Definition | Treatment 1: Test 4 | 10.13 Number of words correct | Standard Error 1.57 |
| Standard Then Alternative: High Dose | Interim Definition | Treatment 1: Test 1 | 3.00 Number of words correct | Standard Error 0.73 |
| Standard Then Alternative: High Dose | Interim Definition | Treatment 1: Test 3 | 9.25 Number of words correct | Standard Error 2.1 |
| Standard Then Alternative: High Dose | Interim Definition | Treatment 2: Test 4 | 9.00 Number of words correct | Standard Error 2.04 |
| Standard Then Alternative: High Dose | Interim Definition | Treatment 2: Test 3 | 9.13 Number of words correct | Standard Error 1.46 |
| Standard Then Alternative: High Dose | Interim Definition | Treatment 2: Test 1 | 4.25 Number of words correct | Standard Error 0.88 |
| Standard Then Alternative: High Dose | Interim Definition | Treatment 1: Test 2 | 12.13 Number of words correct | Standard Error 1.44 |
| Alternative: High Dose Then Standard | Interim Definition | Treatment 2: Test 2 | 9.00 Number of words correct | Standard Error 1.55 |
| Alternative: High Dose Then Standard | Interim Definition | Treatment 2: Test 3 | 11.22 Number of words correct | Standard Error 1.37 |
| Alternative: High Dose Then Standard | Interim Definition | Treatment 2: Test 4 | 9.78 Number of words correct | Standard Error 1.91 |
| Alternative: High Dose Then Standard | Interim Definition | Treatment 1: Test 2 | 8.00 Number of words correct | Standard Error 1.55 |
| Alternative: High Dose Then Standard | Interim Definition | Treatment 1: Test 3 | 9.89 Number of words correct | Standard Error 1.49 |
| Alternative: High Dose Then Standard | Interim Definition | Treatment 1: Test 1 | 5.11 Number of words correct | Standard Error 1.05 |
| Alternative: High Dose Then Standard | Interim Definition | Treatment 1: Test 4 | 10.00 Number of words correct | Standard Error 1.42 |
| Alternative: High Dose Then Standard | Interim Definition | Treatment 2: Test 1 | 6.44 Number of words correct | Standard Error 0.82 |
| High Dose Frequency Then Standard | Interim Definition | Treatment 2: Test 3 | 9.00 Number of words correct | Standard Error 2.04 |
| High Dose Frequency Then Standard | Interim Definition | Treatment 1: Test 4 | 12.78 Number of words correct | Standard Error 2.49 |
| High Dose Frequency Then Standard | Interim Definition | Treatment 2: Test 4 | 10.67 Number of words correct | Standard Error 1.99 |
| High Dose Frequency Then Standard | Interim Definition | Treatment 2: Test 2 | 8.22 Number of words correct | Standard Error 1.75 |
| High Dose Frequency Then Standard | Interim Definition | Treatment 2: Test 1 | 4.56 Number of words correct | Standard Error 1.03 |
| High Dose Frequency Then Standard | Interim Definition | Treatment 1: Test 3 | 10.33 Number of words correct | Standard Error 2.26 |
| High Dose Frequency Then Standard | Interim Definition | Treatment 1: Test 1 | 6.33 Number of words correct | Standard Error 1.52 |
| High Dose Frequency Then Standard | Interim Definition | Treatment 1: Test 2 | 9.67 Number of words correct | Standard Error 2.04 |
| Standard Then Alternative: High Dose Frequency | Interim Definition | Treatment 2: Test 4 | 9.50 Number of words correct | Standard Error 1.88 |
| Standard Then Alternative: High Dose Frequency | Interim Definition | Treatment 2: Test 3 | 6.38 Number of words correct | Standard Error 1.82 |
| Standard Then Alternative: High Dose Frequency | Interim Definition | Treatment 1: Test 1 | 5.38 Number of words correct | Standard Error 0.65 |
| Standard Then Alternative: High Dose Frequency | Interim Definition | Treatment 1: Test 2 | 8.13 Number of words correct | Standard Error 1.66 |
| Standard Then Alternative: High Dose Frequency | Interim Definition | Treatment 1: Test 3 | 10.13 Number of words correct | Standard Error 1.87 |
| Standard Then Alternative: High Dose Frequency | Interim Definition | Treatment 2: Test 1 | 4.75 Number of words correct | Standard Error 1.16 |
| Standard Then Alternative: High Dose Frequency | Interim Definition | Treatment 2: Test 2 | 6.25 Number of words correct | Standard Error 1.59 |
| Standard Then Alternative: High Dose Frequency | Interim Definition | Treatment 1: Test 4 | 10.13 Number of words correct | Standard Error 2.32 |
Comparison: The interim definition data were analyzed with the primary pre-/post-definition data to capture growth across the entire treatment period.p-value: <0.05Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary
Interim Naming
Learning also was tracked during treatment. The research assistant who provided the treatment prompted children to name the target words at four points during each treatment. Depending on the arm, the four test points corresponded to 6-9 exposures, 18-20 exposures, 27-30 exposures, and 36 exposures. The research assistant showed the child the post-book reading picture without the orthographic label and asked a question meant to elicit the phonological form of the target word (e.g., What is the lightning doing? to elicit flashing). Specific feedback was not provided but the correct orthographic label and context sentence always were provided after the child's response regardless of the accuracy of the response. Responses were scored as correct (i.e., matched the target word) or incorrect (i.e., did not match the target word). Total score could range from 0 to 30 words correctly named in each treatment.
Time frame: Administered during treatment, which lasted 5-12 weeks
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Standard Then Alternative: High Dose | Interim Naming | Treatment 1: Test 1 | 0.63 Number of words correct | Standard Error 0.26 |
| Standard Then Alternative: High Dose | Interim Naming | Treatment 1: Test 2 | 3.88 Number of words correct | Standard Error 1.51 |
| Standard Then Alternative: High Dose | Interim Naming | Treatment 1: Test 3 | 5.63 Number of words correct | Standard Error 1.89 |
| Standard Then Alternative: High Dose | Interim Naming | Treatment 1: Test 4 | 5.50 Number of words correct | Standard Error 2.12 |
| Standard Then Alternative: High Dose | Interim Naming | Treatment 2: Test 1 | 0.38 Number of words correct | Standard Error 0.38 |
| Standard Then Alternative: High Dose | Interim Naming | Treatment 2: Test 2 | 2.25 Number of words correct | Standard Error 0.7 |
| Standard Then Alternative: High Dose | Interim Naming | Treatment 2: Test 3 | 4.50 Number of words correct | Standard Error 1.78 |
| Standard Then Alternative: High Dose | Interim Naming | Treatment 2: Test 4 | 7.38 Number of words correct | Standard Error 2.65 |
| Alternative: High Dose Then Standard | Interim Naming | Treatment 2: Test 2 | 2.67 Number of words correct | Standard Error 1.12 |
| Alternative: High Dose Then Standard | Interim Naming | Treatment 2: Test 1 | 0.67 Number of words correct | Standard Error 0.24 |
| Alternative: High Dose Then Standard | Interim Naming | Treatment 1: Test 2 | 1.44 Number of words correct | Standard Error 1 |
| Alternative: High Dose Then Standard | Interim Naming | Treatment 2: Test 4 | 7.33 Number of words correct | Standard Error 2.4 |
| Alternative: High Dose Then Standard | Interim Naming | Treatment 2: Test 3 | 4.67 Number of words correct | Standard Error 1.52 |
| Alternative: High Dose Then Standard | Interim Naming | Treatment 1: Test 4 | 3.67 Number of words correct | Standard Error 1.51 |
| Alternative: High Dose Then Standard | Interim Naming | Treatment 1: Test 3 | 2.89 Number of words correct | Standard Error 1.35 |
| Alternative: High Dose Then Standard | Interim Naming | Treatment 1: Test 1 | 0.78 Number of words correct | Standard Error 0.46 |
| High Dose Frequency Then Standard | Interim Naming | Treatment 2: Test 3 | 5.67 Number of words correct | Standard Error 1.99 |
| High Dose Frequency Then Standard | Interim Naming | Treatment 1: Test 3 | 6.44 Number of words correct | Standard Error 1.66 |
| High Dose Frequency Then Standard | Interim Naming | Treatment 1: Test 4 | 6.56 Number of words correct | Standard Error 1.74 |
| High Dose Frequency Then Standard | Interim Naming | Treatment 2: Test 1 | 0.44 Number of words correct | Standard Error 0.24 |
| High Dose Frequency Then Standard | Interim Naming | Treatment 2: Test 2 | 3.00 Number of words correct | Standard Error 1.38 |
| High Dose Frequency Then Standard | Interim Naming | Treatment 2: Test 4 | 7.44 Number of words correct | Standard Error 2.59 |
| High Dose Frequency Then Standard | Interim Naming | Treatment 1: Test 1 | 0.44 Number of words correct | Standard Error 0.18 |
| High Dose Frequency Then Standard | Interim Naming | Treatment 1: Test 2 | 4.67 Number of words correct | Standard Error 1.33 |
| Standard Then Alternative: High Dose Frequency | Interim Naming | Treatment 1: Test 3 | 6.00 Number of words correct | Standard Error 1.5 |
| Standard Then Alternative: High Dose Frequency | Interim Naming | Treatment 1: Test 4 | 8.00 Number of words correct | Standard Error 2.32 |
| Standard Then Alternative: High Dose Frequency | Interim Naming | Treatment 1: Test 2 | 2.88 Number of words correct | Standard Error 1.06 |
| Standard Then Alternative: High Dose Frequency | Interim Naming | Treatment 1: Test 1 | 0.38 Number of words correct | Standard Error 0.26 |
| Standard Then Alternative: High Dose Frequency | Interim Naming | Treatment 2: Test 1 | 1.50 Number of words correct | Standard Error 0.42 |
| Standard Then Alternative: High Dose Frequency | Interim Naming | Treatment 2: Test 4 | 10.88 Number of words correct | Standard Error 1.8 |
| Standard Then Alternative: High Dose Frequency | Interim Naming | Treatment 2: Test 3 | 7.75 Number of words correct | Standard Error 2.23 |
| Standard Then Alternative: High Dose Frequency | Interim Naming | Treatment 2: Test 2 | 5.75 Number of words correct | Standard Error 1.82 |